United States Military propaganda.

(I guess someone could construe that since I posted this that the military now has a liberal view)

---

> He would rather post liberal views on the boards than go out and find a better
> computer.
>


Whatever, dude...

The last time I checked this was a politcal thread, not a personal attack thread.

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=1790&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=524&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://www.flagofearth.com/Decal2.jpg" HEIGHT="70">

<BR><B><I>Regards, UA

> The last time I checked this was a politcal thread, not a personal attack
> thread.

A political thread on a forum setup for Boinc users, and I quote "Converse with other participants on a wide range of topics".

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

> A political thread on a forum setup for Boinc users, and I quote "Converse
> with other participants on a wide range of topics".

So... like they say on Fox News: "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!" ?????

If PZ is not welcome, then have the moderator boot him. Otherwise....

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=1790&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=524&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://www.flagofearth.com/Decal2.jpg" HEIGHT="70">

<BR><B><I>Regards, UA

The phrase "don't bother me with the facts" comes to mind.....


.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

> The phrase "don't bother me with the facts" comes to mind.....


The facts are that this is a politcal discussion thread, not a personal attack thread.

Have a nice day!

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=1790&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=524&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://www.flagofearth.com/Decal2.jpg" HEIGHT="70">

<BR><B><I>Regards, UA

One could say, ....Have a nice informed day.....

---

The system the CIA relies on to ensure that the suspected terrorists it transfers to other countries will not be tortured has been ineffective and virtually impossible to monitor, according to current and former intelligence officers and lawyers, as well as counterterrorism officials who have participated in or reviewed the practice.

The House voted (on an amendment) Wednesday to ban the use of federal money to transfer terror suspects to countries that are believed to torture prisoners, a practice that has drawn fierce criticism of the Bush administration.

Huh? I thought there weren't any concerns about that kind of thing? Evidently, there is enough concern in Congress to require their attention and action.

Voting against the amendment were two Republican Representatives.
.
.
.So...... those two Republicans wanted to use federal money to send suspects to countries that we think will torture them? ..........nice.

---

> The system the CIA relies on to ensure that the suspected terrorists it
> transfers to other countries will not be tortured has been ineffective and
> virtually impossible to monitor....
>

AARGH!

A conservative Republican's view on torture questions.... excerpt:

"And why do my fellow conservatives -- those who support the war for all the right reasons -- continue to keep silent about a scandal that should have them up in arms?"
.
.

---

> The facts are that this is a politcal discussion thread, not a personal attack
> thread.

You reckon that's why I quoted SETI's own description of the forum instead of attacking anyone?

> And why do my fellow conservatives -- those who support the war for all the
> right reasons -- continue to keep silent about a scandal that should have them
> up in arms?"

1) It's unauthorize actions taken by individuals It concludes that while detainees in Iraq, Guantanamo, and elsewhere were brutalized by military or CIA interrogators, there was no formal policy authorizing such abuse.

2) Most folks realize torture is better than death by suicide bombing or decapitation. You know, that stuff that caused the war in the first place.

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

Ah..yup....

The Pentagon investigated itself and found itself innocent..... what did you think? You thought maybe the generals would order themselves some self-administered flaggelation?

I won't get into what caused the Iraq or the Afghanistan war here.... but it wasn't suicide bombers and decapitation.... Jeebus.

---

> 1) It's unauthorize actions taken by individuals It concludes that while
> detainees in Iraq, Guantanamo, and elsewhere were brutalized by military or
> CIA interrogators, there was no formal policy authorizing such abuse.

I like the fact that they used the word "Formal" in their announcement. That just leaves other tactics that border on "torture" but usually is "coercive interrogation" for the P.C.ers out there. Personally, I don't really care about the way the military or our intelligence gets the information from terrorists. If they get the word and prevent a suicide bomber from blowing up an airplane over the Atlantic or stop LAX from being blown up, more power to them. Tourism directly affects my life and the lives of at least 1.2 Million Americans here in the islands, not to mention how many more on the mainland. Against the liberties of a few hippies in turbans, the greater good comes to mind.

> 2) Most folks realize torture is better than death by suicide bombing or
> decapitation. You know, that stuff that caused the war in the first place.

PZ will probably say that it wasn't the cause of the war and on face value, he's right. Deeper meaning, though, would say you are.(Radical fundamentalism, PZ. That I can pretty much site to many existing things out there. Also, Paul, you might want to read the actual bill for ANWR passed. It's pretty much along the lines of what I said, and you derided.) Peace.

Edit: For reference, look at Page S2716 of Senate AMENDMENT 168,(S.AMDT.168) to Senate Concurring Resolution 18,(S.Con.Res.18) on FY2006 Budget. Just thought I'd put the facts to my statement over in Drilling in Alaska for PZ to check up on.

---

Also, Paul, you might want to read the actual bill for ANWR passed.
> It's pretty much along the lines of what I said, and you derided.)

ponbiki,

I can't imagine why you would post about anwr here unless it was just in an attempt to show someone you got a little dig in at me....

I'm afraid you are still very much mistaken, though... the Senate clearly had not passed a Bill authorizing anything. The Senate defeated an amendment to remove provisions in a Budget resolution.

Late Thursday, the Senate did vote to pass it's version of the Budget and now that measure will have to be reconciled with the House Budget. On Wednesday you and some others claimed a bill authorizing ANWR drilling had been passed and that was simply not true. As is the fact that ANWR still has not been approved in any way other than it has survived as a provision in the resolution to next years Budget.

There are still a number of hurdles for any Budget bill to go through before we will know if the ANWR leasing provisions survive the budget process.

I did not deride your earlier post, but I did point out your misconceptions. You evidently did not read, or didn't read too closely or havent researched the issue because you still say a bill was passed when that had not happened.

Provisions to Resolutions and Amendments to such are specific definitions of legislative actions which are not a Bill.

I don't declare myself infallible.... let's look at what's what, so we're all on the same page.

I would think you could start by responding to 86920 after reading 86988 to become grounded in some of the history of earlier attempts to attach ANWR leasing to a budget.



----------------------

And lest you misunderstand my point on torture, I have no sympathy for those that do attack us.

I am concerned with due process and the rule of law.

I am greatly concerned that we reject treaties that are for our own benefit as well as for the benefit of other states.

I am concerned that we do not set the examples of what we preach.

And I am concerned that so many innocent lives are caught up in our reactions to threats.

Torture is wielded as a deterrent and a punishment, it's accepted that information gained through torture is less than reliable, so it's the sadistic and authoritarian aspects of torture that need be addressed.

We say that we abhor a reign of terror when others practice it.... at the same time we seem to think we can justify it if we are instituting the same practices.

As to suicide bombers and decapitations, those acts grow out of a root cause that is not acknowledged by assigning the war to acts which grow out of political causes. If we are to understand war or terrorism, we have to acknowledge that it's cause is not rooted in the footsoldiers but in ideological beliefs and power manipulations.

---

> ponbiki,
>
> I can't imagine why you would post about anwr here unless it was just in an
> attempt to show someone you got a little dig in at me....

I have no dig in on you, I'm just demonstrating that there are factual things to backup some of my statements, which you put into question. Granted it was on the Alaska one and I'm sorry if I messed up things for you. I was talking about politics and the flow seemingly pushed it towards that.

> Late Thursday, the Senate did vote to pass it's version of the Budget and now
> that measure will have to be reconciled with the House Budget. On Wednesday
> you and some others claimed a bill authorizing ANWR drilling had been passed
> and that was simply not true. As is the fact that ANWR still has not been
> approved in any way other than it has survived as a provision in the
> resolution to next years Budget.

The measure was to table any potential opening of ANWR and with it's defeat, it pretty much leaves the issue open for discussion. It's true that no definitive motion has taken place but, unlike previous years, this symbolizes a shift in thinking towards actual opening. I'd rather be hysterical about that possibility, especially with this crowd and this administration, than to be ho-hum about it.

> I did not deride your earlier post, but I did point out your misconceptions.
> You evidently did not read, or didn't read too closely or havent researched
> the issue because you still say a bill was passed when that had not happened.

It's hard to read something from someone who tends to be viewing things only one-way and spends his time slanting things. I guess I was caught up doing SETI work and not taking the time to reading what you were typing. My humble apologies.

> Provisions to Resolutions and Amendments to such are specific definitions of
> legislative actions which are not a Bill.

Amendment to the Resolution on the FY2006 bill. May I point out, though, that you said there wasn't even an amendment.

> And lest you misunderstand my point on torture, I have no sympathy for those
> that do attack us.
>
> I am concerned with due process and the rule of law.

The Rule of Law goes out the window when a person blows himself up and kills civilians. The Rules of Law go out the window when someone hijacks a plane and uses it to make a message or statement of inflicting mass casulties. Due Process fails when the person you're applying it to has no qualms of taking knives or bombs to kill you and 50 other people. You can't apply Western notions of Civility to those that seek to tear it down.

> I am greatly concerned that we reject treaties that are for our own benefit as
> well as for the benefit of other states.

> I am concerned that we do not set the examples of what we preach.
>
In times of war and suffering, we can't be preachy and take a "holier than thou" approach. You have to do things that are less than noble in order to win a war. In WW2, we mass bombed German and Japanese cities with no warning, no precaution, killed millions total. In Vietnam, we deforested acres with Agent Orange.

Besides, where does it say that we must stand idly by as they decapitate our people, burn and mutilate their bodies, and then promptly drag them through the streets and hang them from bridges? Why must our soldiers be held to a high standard while the enemy is allowed free reign? Civility goes as far as the first bullet, everything after that is survival and winning.

> Torture is wielded as a deterrent and a punishment, it's accepted that
> information gained through torture is less than reliable, so it's the sadistic
> and authoritarian aspects of torture that need be addressed.

Torture yields tremendous reams of information. Interrogation is a milder form of torture and it works in the justice systems all around the world. Sure some information is suspect and won't stand up in court but a judicial standard alone should not be the measure of it's effectiveness.

> As to suicide bombers and decapitations, those acts grow out of a root cause
> that is not acknowledged by assigning the war to acts which grow out of
> political causes. If we are to understand war or terrorism, we have to
> acknowledge that it's cause is not rooted in the footsoldiers but in
> ideological beliefs and power manipulations.

Political causes are the foundation of the warping of ideology. Saudi Arabian oppression, the belief of Israeli suppression of the Palestinians(kinda hard to stomach this when Israel only retaliates after seeing its people blown up), lack of economy and freedoms stemming from government intervention. I understand your point but to dismiss political reality completely only gives one dimension to the problem.

---

ponbiki,
>I'm just demonstrating that there are factual things
> to backup some of my statements, which you put into question.

I was speaking to specifics, you were not representing what really happened. Since I see no evidence that you went back and read the information I offered on the other thread I will repeat the information here.

The Republican leadership wrote into next years budget 'resolution', a 'provision' for ANWR leasing. The Senate majority did this to avoid debate on the issue in the Energy Bill, (where it could be argued that such a 'provision' belonged.) So the Senate never had a 'bill' before them, they were taking action on a 'resolution'.

On Wednesday, an 'amendment' was offered that would have stripped the ANWR leasing 'provision' out of the Budget 'resolution'. The 'amendment' was voted on and the vote was 'against' the amendment'. This action was incorrectly reported as a 51-49 vote for something. The correct reporting portrayed the Senate vote correctly by saying that the amendment failed on a 49-51 vote.

Some might say it's splitting hairs since the ultimate conclusion was that the ANWR 'provision' stayed in the 'resolution'. But if you are used to seeing votes as they are supposed to be represented, the first number is yea votes and the second number is nea votes. If one were only to see the headline, knowing the correct order of the numbers can tell you if a vote result was up or down.

> The measure was to table any potential opening of ANWR

I have no idea what 'measure' you are referring to here. The 'amendment' Wednesday was to strip out the ANWR 'provision' from the 'resolution', it was not a motion to 'table' the budget 'resolution', or a motion to 'table' the 'amendment'. Tabling would only mean that it could be brought up later, the majority was interested in passing their budget by Friday's Easter break. They were not interested in tabling anything.

>My humble
> apologies.

Accepted.

>May I point out, though, that
> you said there wasn't even an amendment.

No, not true, you need to re-read the post. More of that not reading carefully. Here is the quote:

"...the vote 'against' an amendment to strip the provisions from the budget.."
"(notice that the Senate did not vote for an amendment, as you stated.)"

I clearly state that they voted against the 'amendment' and said the they did not vote for the 'amendment'. A factual representation and not a statement that can be taken as my saying there wasn't even an amendment.

You had said the Senate voted on a 'bill' to open ANWR.... Maybe you were confused when I said that there was not any vote on a 'bill'.

I would hope that the next time you think about accusing someone of something, you are a little more cautious and circumspect.

---

> The Rule of Law goes out the window when a person blows himself up and kills
> civilians. The Rules of Law go out the window when someone hijacks a plane
> and uses it to make a message or statement of inflicting mass casulties. Due
> Process fails when the person you're applying it to has no qualms of taking
> knives or bombs to kill you and 50 other people. You can't apply Western
> notions of Civility to those that seek to tear it down.

Your application of those terms in the context you use them is not something I was suggesting. I'm not sure you are applying those terms correctly for what you may wish to say there.

The rule of law and due process are not mere notions of civilities, due process and the rule of law is intrinsic to who we are as a nation.... I would humbly suggest that your perceptions of the rule of law and due process are lacking in the kind of depth you should aquire as a citizen of these United States.


> In times of war and suffering, we can't be preachy and take a "holier than
> thou" approach.

Again, I did not suggest that sentiment.... but now that you mention that, we shouldn't do that ever, time of war or not.

>You have to do things that are less than noble in order to
> win a war. In WW2, we mass bombed German and Japanese cities with no warning,
> no precaution, killed millions total. In Vietnam, we deforested acres with
> Agent Orange.

I don't understand your point, those were actions that were not against treaties we were a part of at the time. I spoke of ignoring treaties we are a part of, and actions that are prohibited by those treaties.

Nothing in what I suggested spoke to nobility, but because you fight a war does not automatically rule out fighting for a noble cause or conducting ourselves with nobility in times of war. What would be ignoble would be an unjust war.

> Besides, where does it say that we must stand idly by as they decapitate our
> people, burn and mutilate their bodies, and then promptly drag them through
> the streets and hang them from bridges? Why must our soldiers be held to a
> high standard while the enemy is allowed free reign? Civility goes as far as
> the first bullet, everything after that is survival and winning.

Not sure I understand how the examples you cite have anything to do with what I said. Again, I am concerned that we break treaties we are supposed to uphold and stand as an example for.

> Torture yields tremendous reams of information.

Maybe so, but it's an accepted truism in intelligence circles that information obtained through torture is less than reliable. So much less so, that most have chosen to forego torture in favor of other more effective means to gain useful information.


>Interrogation is a milder
> form of torture and it works in the justice systems all around the world.

Interrogation is not torture. There is no indication of torture just because you question someone and that questioning is interrogation, not torture.


> Sure some information is suspect and won't stand up in court but a judicial
> standard alone should not be the measure of it's effectiveness.

No one referred to information being 'up to judicial standards, I said that information gained during torture was unreliable, in other words not useful because it's likely not true.

> Political causes are the foundation of the warping of ideology.

It is much more likely to be the other way round.

>to dismiss political reality completely only gives
> one dimension to the problem.

Political reality? Is political reality somehow different than evident reality?

I was not dismissing any reality.

In the future please read carefully, and ask if you aren't sure what someone means....

Ascribing only your understanding to others and then accusing them of something they never implied is what I have spent time on most of this post explaining. I would much rather you ask if I mean what you think, rather than accuse me of saying what I did not.

---

Porter J. Goss, the director of central intelligence, said Thursday that he could not assure Congress that the Central Intelligence Agency's methods of interrogating terrorism suspects since Sept. 11, 2001, had been permissible under federal laws prohibiting torture.

---

This is not the America I thought I served.

I see posts here that say the rule of law is just a "nice thing to have" but completely disposable when it's inconvenient, like when people are trying to kill us. I guess I misunderstood American history class. Supposedly the founders of this country risked their very lives and the lives of their children on the idea that the rule of law WAS more important than even the risk of death. They understood a simple concept we are losing: Death before Dishonor.

Without it, we are no different than Saddam, who also tortured and maimed others to protect his own life and livelihood and those of his kin. He himself decided, with out due process or appeal, who was enemy of the state and who was friend, and our government is doing exactly that now. To couch it in the "needs of war" or "eventual benefit of democracy and peace" or "our way is freedom" is hypocrisy, pure and simple. Ethics are what you have when nobody is looking. Ethics are what you have when it's inconvenient to keep them.

This is not a "new kind of war". The Japanese practiced the same methods as the terrorists in the Pacific in World War II, maiming, torturing and beheading prisoners. Despite that, we didn't by and large give in to the temptation to reciprocate their actions. We won the war, and the peace that followed. Vietnam was the same kind of guerilla warfare and we used the same practices as in Iraq, and we lost. WMD tech notwithstanding, we have fought despots, torturers, pirates, guerillas, and terrorists throughout our history. And historically, every time we gave in to our temptation to brutalize our enemies, we may have won the war, but we failed to win the peace.

Here is just one likely scenario. Supposedly we are fighting to keep those who torture and maim and kill innocents out of our country. Will we? We're training our young soldiers now in those very methods. Some of these soldiers will come back and become police and other civic officials. Are they just going to forget the methods they learned there? No they won't, so the real question is: Are we going to be so okay with their methods when they're using them on us? Shall we torture high school kids to find the drug dealers in order to protect those same high schooler's lives? After all, more Americans die of drugs and alcohol each year than died in the entire war on terrorism thus far. How will you feel if your kid is grabbed and "interrogated" because he "looks like a suspect"? But we have rights, you say? You already said rule of law is inconvenient when protecting lives, so that would apply to the war on drugs as well. Congratulate us, for we kept the animals out by making ourselves animals.

Things like this are examples of exactly why upholding the rule of law is MORE important than protecting life and property. If those that support the current administration don't start upholding the checks and balances that made this government something different from anything else that existed 200 years ago, we will degenerate to the point where we're no different than the old Soviet Union, pretending to hold elections where we have a choice, pretending our way is superior, and pretending we have any real rights.

This is not the America that I fought for when I stood the thin green line against totalitarianism. For some reason, I actually believed what they told me, that a soldier could be both a warrior and a representative of the best ideals of the country he represents, and the extra risk was worth it. I thought, when I signed up, that there was a morality that superceded simply protecting one life by destroying another.

America No. 1?

America by the numbers

by Michael Ventura

02/03/05 - - No concept lies more firmly embedded in our national character than the notion that the USA is "No. 1," "the greatest." Our broadcast media are, in essence, continuous advertisements for the brand name "America Is No. 1." Any office seeker saying otherwise would be committing political suicide. In fact, anyone saying otherwise will be labeled "un-American." We're an "empire," ain't we? Sure we are. An empire without a manufacturing base. An empire that must borrow $2 billion a day from its competitors in order to function. Yet the delusion is ineradicable. We're No. 1. Well...this is the country you really live in: The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (the New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004). The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005). "The International Adult Literacy Survey...found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy Rifkin's superbly documented book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78). Our workers are so ignorant and lack so many basic skills that American businesses spend $30 billion a year on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). No wonder they relocate elsewhere! "The European Union leads the U.S. in...the number of science and engineering graduates; public research and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised" (The European Dream, p.70). "Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature" (The European Dream, p.70). Nevertheless, Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28 percent last year.

Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56 percent, Indians 51 percent, South Koreans 28 percent (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore. The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. "The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less. "The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping. Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.) "U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81).

Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty. Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004). The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005). Women are 70 percent more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005). The leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country is murder (CNN, Dec. 14, 2004). "Of the 20 most developed countries in the world, the U.S. was dead last in the growth rate of total compensation to its workforce in the 1980s.... In the 1990s, the U.S. average compensation growth rate grew only slightly, at an annual rate of about 0.1 percent" (The European Dream, p.39). Yet Americans work longer hours per year than any other industrialized country, and get less vacation time. "Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S. companies" (The European Dream, p.66). "In a recent survey of the world's 50 best companies, conducted by Global Finance, all but one were European" (The European Dream, p.69). "Fourteen of the 20 largest commercial banks in the world today are European.... In the chemical industry, the European company BASF is the world's leader, and three of the top six players are European. In engineering and construction, three of the top five companies are European.... The two others are Japanese. Not a single American engineering and construction company is included among the world's top nine competitors. In food and consumer products, Nestlé and Unilever, two European giants, rank first and second, respectively, in the world. In the food and drugstore retail trade, two European companies...are first and second, and European companies make up five of the top ten. Only four U.S. companies are on the list" (The European Dream, p.68). The United States has lost 1.3 million jobs to China in the last decade (CNN, Jan. 12, 2005). U.S. employers eliminated 1 million jobs in 2004 (The Week, Jan. 14, 2005). Three million six hundred thousand Americans ran out of unemployment insurance last year; 1.8 million--one in five--unemployed workers are jobless for more than six months (NYT, Jan. 9, 2005). Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40 percent of our government debt. (That's why we talk nice to them.) "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture. Sometime in the next 10 years Brazil will probably pass the U.S. as the world's largest agricultural producer. Brazil is now the world's largest exporter of chickens, orange juice, sugar, coffee, and tobacco. Last year, Brazil passed the U.S. as the world's largest beef producer. (Hear that, you poor deluded cowboys?) As a result, while we bear record trade deficits, Brazil boasts a $30 billion trade surplus (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate. One-third of all U.S. children are born out of wedlock. One-half of all U.S. children will live in a one-parent house (CNN, Dec. 10, 2004). "Americans are now spending more money on gambling than on movies, videos, DVDs, music, and books combined" (The European Dream, p.28). "Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32). Forty-three percent of Americans think torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004). "Nearly 900,000 children were abused or neglected in 2002, the last year for which such data are available" (USA Today, Dec. 21, 2004). "The International Association of Chiefs of Police said that cuts by the
[Bush] administration in federal aid to local police agencies have left the nation more vulnerable than ever" (USA Today, Nov. 17, 2004). No. 1? In most important categories we're not even in the Top 10 anymore. Not even close.

The USA is "No. 1" in nothing but weaponry, consumer spending, debt, and delusion.

---